From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on dcvr.yhbt.net X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-ASN: AS3215 2.6.0.0/16 X-Spam-Status: No, score=-3.4 required=3.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,DKIM_SIGNED, DKIM_VALID,HEADER_FROM_DIFFERENT_DOMAINS,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, SPF_HELO_NONE,SPF_PASS shortcircuit=no autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 Received: from out1.vger.email (out1.vger.email [IPv6:2620:137:e000::1:20]) by dcvr.yhbt.net (Postfix) with ESMTP id 44F991F910 for ; Thu, 10 Nov 2022 02:13:17 +0000 (UTC) Authentication-Results: dcvr.yhbt.net; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=ttaylorr-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com header.i=@ttaylorr-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com header.b="FHc+CPT8"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S232190AbiKJCNA (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Nov 2022 21:13:00 -0500 Received: from lindbergh.monkeyblade.net ([23.128.96.19]:36440 "EHLO lindbergh.monkeyblade.net" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S231571AbiKJCM6 (ORCPT ); Wed, 9 Nov 2022 21:12:58 -0500 Received: from mail-io1-xd35.google.com (mail-io1-xd35.google.com [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::d35]) by lindbergh.monkeyblade.net (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2212410056 for ; Wed, 9 Nov 2022 18:12:57 -0800 (PST) Received: by mail-io1-xd35.google.com with SMTP id n191so266286iod.13 for ; Wed, 09 Nov 2022 18:12:57 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=ttaylorr-com.20210112.gappssmtp.com; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=vzsehmJyNcWfHNUaoCbAnwf+zhc+lcgqMeDheuq/uGk=; b=FHc+CPT85uCOZLphonlF8PpQNbybBsPl3wIfk3ERmzDdfgdQpwgqe6XuYCn5V/gHSD oMGG56cS+TelYRWFOMRRp+HFp+DQrDLHQKhZjkL+sTnTb4nfy60cqqpmQ582+nM9HSnv QT2YCeg0Z4jFAws/r4U2M6fpEVvzdB91p5uuvAZdVkgrMaIU8Xlx3brnqiiSc2YLopU2 CHuZqq1NvlH06sksw2tMQTS98HqLhADa8HikGyuZrBooeTMpW/eZUJ1ZT8e4LQntnvYd MS73gqSy8O4rMPq6lYjUgUkIG28Qh4h3x9CCL1nyp+ZDMxeDo/m+Tysab24Dj26iwa/s 4/Ow== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20210112; h=in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references:message-id :subject:cc:to:from:date:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=vzsehmJyNcWfHNUaoCbAnwf+zhc+lcgqMeDheuq/uGk=; b=zuGOwyC62+8JDkDYuvs/DTgYRDhsyoQOPTo5AVvbvUtLvRjYFsntVXxmSqDcbHy+gx g86m5KwVtSMoCOMrzBnR2qiHOkxFbfeqBEW2WWBZYGlqT+qBccgjuJDoD1IdCRkAAWf0 pJ4QhE3V69Ahu843JKhkxVjR0jblhBYHq8XRNztKD2cUCLCYF85oyarelva8WhcrwBci 2V69gkeYmKTfE5d+1a10QmM8LAndwbluAsKC8F9J/rYmhEja0zKNzp+KWksY3dK+sJU0 lhtZNAQwVhO8qd9cisxEgICzcUnotaQZH36WiINHfnun5YEncXxqzfvOno19d6CAM15X FUeQ== X-Gm-Message-State: ACrzQf19/REsdW3DMoqkrF2d/HznvovKWaFD3qHsUbTkn2YSZ8U914Qq Zu4EMFREady58OOtaJGlXxOM8g== X-Google-Smtp-Source: AMsMyM7mHkDAF7MW93i4nSe/ba6I88ilB7Rd8he4qW2w40CmtzxPxIJdvQVx6aURhCZf6wGsNuDH3Q== X-Received: by 2002:a02:340c:0:b0:375:b099:e48e with SMTP id x12-20020a02340c000000b00375b099e48emr2060458jae.319.1668046376440; Wed, 09 Nov 2022 18:12:56 -0800 (PST) Received: from localhost (104-178-186-189.lightspeed.milwwi.sbcglobal.net. [104.178.186.189]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id d15-20020a056e020bef00b002eb5eb4f8f9sm5387039ilu.77.2022.11.09.18.12.55 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Wed, 09 Nov 2022 18:12:56 -0800 (PST) Date: Wed, 9 Nov 2022 21:12:54 -0500 From: Taylor Blau To: Victoria Dye via GitGitGadget Cc: git@vger.kernel.org, gitster@pobox.com, phillip.wood123@gmail.com, derrickstolee@github.com, jonathantanmy@google.com, Taylor Blau , Victoria Dye Subject: Re: [PATCH v2 0/5] Skip 'cache_tree_update()' when 'prime_cache_tree()' is called immediate after Message-ID: References: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: Precedence: bulk List-ID: X-Mailing-List: git@vger.kernel.org On Thu, Nov 10, 2022 at 01:57:12AM +0000, Victoria Dye via GitGitGadget wrote: > Changes since V1 > ================ > > * Rewrote 'p0090' to more accurately and reliably test 'prime_cache_tree()' > vs. 'cache_tree_update()'. > * Moved iterative cache tree update out of C and into the shell tests (to > avoid potential runtime optimizations) > * Added a "control" test to document how much of the execution time is > startup overhead > * Added tests demonstrating performance in partially-invalid cache trees. > * Fixed the use of 'prime_cache_tree()' in 'test-tool cache-tree', changing > it from using the tree at HEAD to the current cache tree. All seem very reasonable to me, and the range-diff matches what you say. Let's hear from Stolee, who reviewed the first round, too, and then we should feel comfortable to start merging this down. Thanks, Taylor